DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed on May 6th, 2024. A summary of this action:
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Claims 11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite
Claim 11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mathematical concept, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental process without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al., US 2023/0103668 in view of Kerrison, H., et al. "Impact of streamer acquisition geometry on FWI Imaging." 82nd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition. Vol. 2021. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2021 in further view of Wu, Han, et al. "Joint Migration Inversion Based on a Full-Wavefield Acoustic Wave Equation With Vector Reflectivity." IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 62 (2024): 1-11.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al., US 2023/0103668 in view of Kerrison, H., et al. "Impact of streamer acquisition geometry on FWI Imaging." 82nd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition. Vol. 2021. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2021 in further view of Wu, Han, et al. "Joint Migration Inversion Based on a Full-Wavefield Acoustic Wave Equation With Vector Reflectivity." IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 62 (2024): 1-11 in further view of Teodor, Daniela, et al. "Building initial models for full-waveform inversion of shallow targets by surface waves dispersion curves clustering and data transform." SEG International Exposition and Annual Meeting. SEG, 2018.
Claim(s) 11, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al., US 2023/0103668 in view of Kerrison, H., et al. "Impact of streamer acquisition geometry on FWI Imaging." 82nd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition. Vol. 2021. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2021 in further view of Wu, Han, et al. "Joint Migration Inversion Based on a Full-Wavefield Acoustic Wave Equation With Vector Reflectivity." IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 62 (2024): 1-11 in further view of Lietaert, Bert. "Design and development of a hazard map for the." Master’s Thesis. Delft University of Technology (2011).
This action is non-final
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 19-20 have potential ambiguity in their preambles that they are directed to software per se which is not eligible subject matter as its not one of the four statutory categories. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to ensure it is clearly directed to one of the categories, e.g. “A non-transitory computer-readable medium including code configured to:” instead of being directed to the computer program itself, which includes this as presently recited.
Claims 11, 19, and 20 are objected to because the independent claims already recite “energy development equipment”, and there is not an express modifying disambiguating term for the “equipment” in these dependents. The Examiner suggests a modifier such as “second” or the like.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 11, 18, and 20 recite the limitation (11 as representative): “determining hazard information to optimize one or more of:” wherein “optimize” is construed in view of ¶ 71: “It is appreciated that the term optimize/optimal and its variants (e.g., efficient or optimally) may simply indicate improving, rather than the ultimate form of 'perfection' or the like.”
This is an unlimited functional limitation and therefore indefinite, because it merely expresses an intended result of the hazard information while reciting no steps to actually accomplish the result (i.e. improving compliance or security operations). MPEP § 2173.05(g): “Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty")…Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). See also Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) where a claim directed to a software based system for creating a customized computer interface screen recited that the screen be "aesthetically pleasing," which is an intended result and does not provide a clear cut indication of scope because it imposed no structural limits on the screen. Unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
See the § 112(a) rejection above, wherein the instant specification (¶¶ 12, 66) does not describe even a single manner sufficiently described of how to achieve the intended result. MPEP § 2173.05(g), then see MPEP § 2161.01(I): “As stated by the Federal Circuit, "[a]lthough many original claims will satisfy the written description requirement, certain claims may not." Id. at 1349, 94 USPQ2d at 1170-71; see also LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1343-46, 76 USPQ2d 1724, 1730-33 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1405-06 (Fed. Cir. 1997)("The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention."). Problems satisfying the written description requirement for original claims often occur when claim language is generic or functional, or both. Ariad, 593 F.3d at 1349, 94 USPQ2d at 1171 ("The problem is especially acute with genus claims that use functional language to define the boundaries of a claimed genus. In such a case, the functional claim may simply claim a desired result, and may do so without describing species that achieve that result. But the specification must demonstrate that the applicant [inventor] has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant [inventor] has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.")… Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mathematical concept, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental process without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed towards the statutory category of a process.
Claim 14 is directed towards the statutory category of an apparatus.
Claim 19 is directed towards the statutory category of an article of manufacture.
Claims 14 and 19, and the dependents thereof, are rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 1, and the dependents thereof.
Claim interpretation
The claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation by a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) as discussed in MPEP § 2111; also see in MPEP § 2111: “Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”) … Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach.”
MPEP § 2111.01(I): “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ("[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’" (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).”
MPEP § 2111.01(III): “"[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application." Phillips v. AWH Corp.,415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1302, 67 USPQ2d 1438, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298, 67 USPQ2d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("In the absence of an express intent to impart a novel meaning to the claim terms, the words are presumed to take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art.")… Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("Although we have emphasized the importance of intrinsic evidence in claim construction, we have also authorized district courts to rely on extrinsic evidence, which "consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.")… Any meaning of a claim term taken from the prior art must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Moreover, when the specification is clear about the scope and content of a claim term, there is no need to turn to extrinsic evidence for claim interpretation.”
As part of properly determining the broadest reasonable interpretation, one must first determine who is a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2141.03(I): “The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (A) "type of problems encountered in the art;" (B) "prior art solutions to those problems;" (C) "rapidity with which innovations are made;" (D) "sophistication of the technology; and" (E) "educational level of active workers in the field. In a given case, every factor may not be present, and one or more factors may predominate." In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962, 1 USPQ2d 1196, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Environmental Designs, Ltd. V. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696, 218 USPQ 865, 868 (Fed. Cir. 1983)…. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007)… The level of disclosure in the specification of the application under examination or in relevant references may also be informative of the knowledge and skills of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For example, if the specification is entirely silent on how a certain step or function is achieved, that silence may suggest that figuring out how to achieve that step or function is within the ordinary skill in the art, provided that the specification complies with 35 U.S.C. 112. References which are not prior art may be relied upon to demonstrate the level of ordinary skill in the art at or around the relevant time. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1098, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Evidence of contemporaneous invention is probative of ‘the level of knowledge in the art at the time the invention was made.’"…”
MPEP § 2143.01(II): “If the only facts of record pertaining to the level of skill in the art are found within the prior art of record, the court has held that an invention may be held to have been obvious without a specific finding of a particular level of skill where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level. Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d 774, 218 USPQ 673 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355, 59 USPQ2d 1795, 1797 (Fed. Cir. 2001).”
Should further clarification be sought on this level of skill determination during Examination, see (informative) Ex parte Jud, PTAB Appeal No. 2006-1061, available here: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions
See the instant disclosure, ¶ 30, in particular noting eq. 3. See ¶ 69 to further clarify.
Such a technique is well-known and within the common knowledge of POSITA, for it was the work of another, and routinely referenced in the state of the art by the time this application was effectively filed.
It is math calculations in the commonly known technique of “FWI Imaging”, the equation first published in this context on in:
Zhang, Zhigang, et al. "FWI Imaging: Full-wavefield imaging through full-waveform inversion." SEG International Exposition and Annual Meeting. SEG, 2020 (see section FWI imaging on page 657, eq. 1-3, note: “where the impedance is the multiplication of density and velocity” – i.e. the “p” and “V” in instant eq. 3 are merely separated into the two impedance components of “density and velocity” of Zhang).
Zhang was provided in the IDS on May 6th, 2024.
To be clear, Zhang’s technique has become very “popular” since the Zhang reference was published (and before the effective filing date of the instant application), i.e. POSITA at the effective time of filing would have presumably known about it in their own common knowledge.
Baldock, S., et al. "FWI Imaging: the future or merely derivative?." 84th EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition Workshop Programme. Vol. 2023. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2023. Abstract: “Creating images from high-resolution FWI models by taking some form of the spatial derivative of the velocity has quickly become a popular way to generate reflectivity images, typically called FWI Imaging. FWI imaging offers the possibility of high-quality and high-resolution in a more simplified workflow compared to the conventional processing, model building and imaging workflow. Such images are being increasingly used as alternatives or even replacements of the conventional, or least squares, Kirchhoff and RTM products.” – Introduction: “…Zhang et al. (2020) improve the imaging of dipping events by employing a 3D derivative along the normal to the dominant dip direction….”
Even within the short time that the paper was released by Zhang, it rapidly became common knowledge.
Wang, Bin, et al. "Inversion-based imaging: from LSRTM to FWI imaging." First Break 39.12 (2021): 85-93. Summary: “With the recent convergence of FWI and LSRTM methodologies, FWI is not only being used as a velocity update tool, but also as a direct imaging tool, thereby achieving two key imaging goals, namely refining the velocity model and deriving a better-quality seismic image. The latter process, which is known as ‘FWI imaging’, has recently been gaining a lot of industry attention as it offers the possibility of high-quality imaging along with workflow simplification.” – and page 86, col. 2, ¶ 1: “Another new recent development of high-frequency FWI is FWI imaging (Zhang et al, 2020; Wang et al, 2020; He, et al, 2021), which is discussed in more detail in this article.”
Rayment, T., et al. "High-resolution FWI imaging-an alternative to conventional processing." 83rd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition. Vol. 2022. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2022. Introduction: “A common method is to include reflections in a high-frequency, single parameter FWI to derive an interpretable model (Letki et al., 2019), the derivatives of which can form a pseudo-reflectivity image (Kalinicheva et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020). These can provide excellent fast-track structural images but a priori assumptions about density impose significant limitations on the amplitude fidelity of the results.”
Rayment, Tom. LC London: MP-FWI imaging: the future of processing and imaging, with Tom Rayment. YouTube Video. Apr. 19th, 2024. URL: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=McnYn6u4R68. Around the 2:20-2:30 timeframe specifically, note that “2020” on this “brief history” shows that “Least-squares migration”: “iterative least-squares migration has become possible and is regarded as one of the most advanced and conventional imaging algorithms that we might run today” – and see around 3:20 wherein the slide has been further updated to state this is “Reflection FWI” and the transcript notes this is a “hot topic in the industry” – see Zhang, 2020 to clarify, at page 658 col. 1, ¶ 1: “As for the imaging procedure, the RTM image is technically obtained through an adjoint operator whereas the FWI Image is the result of an iterative least-squares data fitting process, which has similar benefits to least-squares migration, such as balancing illumination and mitigating migration artifacts on the images.”
Additional evidence discussed below in the 2B WURC consideration of the imaging step, and the Examiner considers such evidence critical in the common knowledge of POSITA when they read the presently ordered claimed invention, including the generation of the imaging step, for POSITA would have readily recognized what scope this was claiming.
As a point of clarity, the Examiner notes that this math concept of the equation has no basis in measurement itself, but rather is purely a scientific truism expressed as a math equation, in particular in the math of wave propagation for acoustic waves through changing media (e.g. the Earth and its many layers of lithography, e.g. sand, rock, etc.). In other words, it is akin to Snell’s Law which describes the angles of incident and reflected waves at every interface (change of media with different refractive indices, e.g. in optics, in EM waves, in seismology, etc.) commonly expressed in mathematical form in collegiate introductory physics courses in forms such as:
n
1
s
i
n
θ
1
=
n
2
s
i
n
θ
2
; or in other forms, e.g.
s
i
n
θ
1
s
i
n
θ
2
=
n
2
n
1
=
v
1
/
v
2
, wherein “n” is well-known refractive index, theta (
θ
) is the angle of incidence, and v is the velocity of the wave, with the “1” and “2” indicating the two media, e.g. water and air (e.g. the well-known fact to POSITAs that the speed of sound is much faster in water then in air is expressed in mathematical form by Snell’s law).
To clarify:
See above, including Zhang: “The reflectivity [reflections at changes of media] is defined as the volumetric distribution of reflection coefficients. At normal incidence [angle of incidence is at the normal angle, e.g. 90 degrees/perpendicular], the reflection coefficient is the normalized impedance contrast, and the impedance contrast across the interface can be obtained by… where the impedance is the multiplication of density [of the media] and velocity [e.g. Snell’s law]… are dip angle and azimuth angle of the normal vector to the subsurface reflectors”…)
Jones, Ian F., et al. "Tutorial: Least squares migration and full waveform imaging." First Break 41.3 (2023): 27-35. Section: “Full waveform inversion imaging”: “Given that the Earth’s reflectivity structure is related to impedance contrasts [changes] across reflecting layer boundaries, then assessing the changes in velocity across these boundaries can be used as a proxy for reflectivity if combined with some estimate of the associated density changes. Thus, taking the derivative (normal to the layer boundaries) of a high-frequency FWI velocity model and scaling with a density proxy can produce an emulation of the Earth’s reflectivity structure (Zhang et al., 2020): see equations A6-A11 in the Appendix for the derivation of the FWI image from the estimated velocity.” – then, see the appendix for its derivation, noting in particular eq. A6.
Gomes et al., US 2018/0196154 ¶ 3: “Seismic data are series time and amplitude pairs recorded at a detection location. Between the source and the sensor, the seismic waves travel through various layers [media] characterized by different propagation velocities [e.g. Snell’s Law], and part of the waves ' energy is reflected and refracted at interfaces of the layers [e.g. Snell’s Law]. A layer' s impedance is a product of density and propagation velocity. The change in impedance at an interface determines the seismic waves to be partially reflected and partially refracted ( i.e., reflectivity ). The amplitude values correspond to seismic energy arriving at the sensors.”
Russell, Brian, and Dan Hampson. "The old and the new in seismic inversion." CSEG Recorder 31.10 (2006): 5-11. See fig. 6 and accompanying description, then see equations 4-5 and accompanying description, noting the use of the “velocity” and “density” with respect to the angles in fig. 6, i.e. it’s the mathematical expressions of the scientific truisms of how waves propagate through interfaces of two different media.
Step 2A – Prong 1
The claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
The focus of the claimed advance is the math concept itself, as what POSITA would readily recognize by their own common knowledge, i.e. a claim directed to a commonly known math concept at the heart of a popular analysis technique of FWI imaging, used in its ordinary capacity to generate an image (typically referred to by POSITAs as a FWI image). See consideration of POSITA’s common knowledge above to clarify, WURC evidence below on the image generation step.
This is not eligible, for there is no improvement to technology, but rather a claim that simple pre-empts that what is already known and in routine use, with a token mental process added to the thrust of the claimed advance, followed by a token post-solution activity of an insignificant application that is fully conventional (see below to clarify).
See MPEP § 2106.04: “...In other claims, multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, or multiple laws of nature may be recited. In these cases, examiners should not parse the claim. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.”
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mathematical concept recited in claim 1 is:
determining, using the computer processor and the one or more data matrices or data cubes, a first rate of change data of the propagated wavefield within the subsurface in a first direction;
determining, using the computer processor and the one or more data matrices or data cubes, a second rate of change data of the propagated wavefield within the subsurface in a second direction;
determining, using the computer processor and the one or more data matrices or data cubes, a third rate of change data of the propagated wavefield within the subsurface in a third direction;
executing, using the computer processor and the first rate of change data, the second rate of change data, and the third rate of change data, an averaging operation to generate an impedance model for the subsurface;
The above limitations, taken in ordered combination, are a math concept of a series of mathematical calculations in textual form, but do the math calculation on a computer/in a computer environment. The term “rate of change” is merely a textual placeholder for performing a “gradient” calculation, e.g. see ¶ 30 and eq. 3, in particular the partial derivatives of the velocity with respect to Cartesian coordinates (i.e. calculating the acceleration in each direction), followed by an “averaging operation” which is the math calculation of averaging, e.g. eq. 1 in ¶ 27.
¶ 69: “The geo-layering data shown in FIG. SB may be obtained by determining (e.g., differentiating) a rate of change of…” – to clarify, the rate of change of velocity in Newtonian physics is acceleration, i.e. in calculus one can integrate acceleration over time to obtain velocity, and vice-versa (differentiate velocity to determine the rate of change/acceleration of velocity).
Should further clarification be required, see ¶¶ 30-31, i.e. the focus of the claimed advance is merely the math concept above, wherein “According to some embodiments, implementations based on equation (2) can represent a double data transformation that provides an effective S-wave and P-wave statics estimation at a datum plan within an investigation depth of surface waves but is less useful when it comes to data interpretation for geological modeling. According to some embodiments, the disclosed approach addresses a number of issues by calculating a spatial gradient of the time average velocity l1z (e.g., Vpz and/or V52) and thereby determine a pseudo reflectivity out of velocity models associated with a propagated wavefield” – i.e. simply a more “useful” math equation for math calculations.
One that was already in the common knowledge of POSITA as well (see above).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mathematical concept – the above limitations are steps in a mathematical concept such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed towards a mathematical concept, then it falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, as per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”
See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
The mental process recited in claim 1 is:
analyzing or interpreting, using the computer processor, the multi-dimensional image of the subsurface to determine subsurface features included in the multi-dimensional image and thereby generate a geo-layering model; dynamically constructing, using the computer processor and the geo-layering model, the development plan for the resource site;
A mental process, but done in a computer environment.
¶ 58: “Turning to block 414, the signal processing engine may generate, using the impedance model of the subsurface, a multidimensional image of the subsurface that is resolvable into at least two dimensions or in at least three dimensions as the case may require. At block 416, the signal processing engine may analyze or interpret the multi-dimensional image of the subsurface to determine subsurface features comprised in the multi-dimensional image and thereby generate a geo-layering model for the resource site. Following this, the signal processing engine may dynamically construct, using the geo-layering model, the development plan for the resource site at block 418. The development plan, for example, may comprise a computation report or a digital file indicating structural properties of the subsurface of the resource site including parameters or descriptors of the geo-layering model. At block 420, the signal processing engine may initiate, using the development plan, an energy development operation including deploying one or more energy development equipment to the resource site. This deployment may be facilitated, for example, by the electronic transmission of the development plan to a stake holder (e.g., contractor, site developers, etc.) and/or transmission of instructions to energy development systems that control or otherwise coordinate said deployment of energy development equipment”
To clarify, “multi-dimensional” conveys embodiments such as “two dimensions”, e.g. an image printed out on a sheet of paper. The claim goes into no particularly on how the analyzing or interpreting is to be performed, but rather merely claims the desired result. In other words, its directed to the abstract idea of a person observing an image, and evaluating it mentally so as to determine subsurface features.
To clarify, as the instant disclosure gives no visual example of what this image would look like for a mental observation, but given that the math is well-known for generating such an image, see a visual example, including the annotations by a person skilled in the art based on their stated mental observations on it:
To clarify, for a visual depiction of what such an image would typically look like, and how POSITAs would commonly be able to analyze it, see:
Peiro, M., et al. "PS imaging on the Edvard Grieg field: Application of PS Reflection FWI and FWI imaging." 83rd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition. Vol. 2022. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2022. Figure 1. “Comparison of legacy PP Kirchhoff pre-stack depth migration (left) and 65 Hz 𝑉𝑃 FWI Image (right). The latter improves the flatness of the chalk (indicated by the arrows) and the reservoir below.” – note the bottom of this page discusses this merely generated the image using the technique of Zhang et al., 2020, as was discussed above. The annotations are merely showing how POSITA would have interpreted/analyzed the layers, i.e. a “chalk” layer on the top, with a “reservoir” layer below, with an interface between these layers as visibly depicted.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The generation of the geo-layering model is merely the mental visualization in POSITAs own mind of the lithographic layers, akin to how a baker mentally visualizes layers of a cake (and icing) in the process of baking a cake. Physical aids, e.g. pen and paper, to make 2D sketches, and writing down on pen and paper observations from the image (e.g. approximate dimensions with coordinates of the different subsurface features; akin to a cartographer make notes in the process of making a map) would be helpful technique to aid a person in performing this mental process. To clarify, POSITA merely needs to observe the resulting image, and identify the layers in the image, e.g. where the “chalk” is and where the “reservoir” is, and then sketch these out in another form, or mentally visualize them.
The person, e.g. a POSITA, would then merely mentally evaluate/judge how to develop the resource site, e.g. how they need to drill to extract oil (e.g. see the Oil fields from the 1920’s-1930’s in the United States [see below for evidence of the historical fact], as people have long mentally determined how to extract oil from the ground based on mental analysis of seismic data).
To clarify on that historical fact, already known to POSITA, see Kate Mantle, “Direction Drilling Practices”, The Defining Series by Schlumberger published Oilfield Review Winter 2013/2014: 25, no. 4. Page 1, col. 1: “The practice of directional drilling traces its roots to the 1920s, when basic wellbore surveying methods were introduced. These methods alerted drillers to the fact that supposedly vertical wells were actually deflecting in unwanted directions. To combat this deviation, drillers devised techniques to keep the well path as vertical as possible… The first intentionally drilled directional wells provided remedial solutions to drilling problems: straightening crooked wellbores, sidetracking around stuck pipe and drilling relief wells to kill blowouts (below). Directional drillers used rudimentary survey instruments to orient the wellbore. By the 1930s, a controlled directional well was drilled in Huntington Beach, California, USA, from an onshore location to target offshore oil sands…. Most directional wells begin as vertical wellbores. At a designated depth, known as the kickoff point (KOP), the directional driller deflects the well path by increasing well inclination to begin the build section. Surveys taken during the drilling process indicate the direction of the bit and the toolface, or orientation of the measurement sensors in the well. The directional driller constantly monitors these measurements and adjusts the trajectory of the well bore as needed to intercept the next target along the well path.” – and page 1 col. 2, last paragraph to page 2, col. 1, ¶ 2: “During well planning, the directional driller must consider several factors to determine the required trajectory, particularly dogleg seventy (DLS)-the rate of change in wellbore trajectory, measured in degrees per 30 m (100 ft]-as well as the capabilities of the BHA, drill string, logging tools and casing to pass through the doglegs. Drilling limitations include rig specifications such as maximum torque and pressure available from surface systems. Geologic features such as faults or formation changes need to be carefully considered; for example, very soft formations may limit build rates, and formation dip may cause a bit to walk, or drift laterally. Local knowledge of drilling behavior enables the directional driller to derive the correct lead angle needed to intercept the target. The skill of the directional driller lies in projecting ahead, estimating the spatial position of the bit and, based on the specific circumstances, deciding what course to take to intercept the target or targets. In the early days of directional drilling, a manual slide rule device was used to calculate the toolface angle required to drill from the last survey station to a target. Today, computer programs perform the same function”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of physical aids but for the recitation of a generic computer component. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. A person would readily be able to perform this process either mentally or with the assistance of physical aids. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
To clarify, see the USPTO 101 training examples, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility. In particular, with respect to the physical aids, see example # 45, analysis of claim 1 under step 2A prong 1, including: “Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”; also see example # 49, analysis of claim 1, under step 2A prong 1: “Moreover, the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Even if most humans would use a physical aid, like a pen and paper or a calculator, to make such calculations, the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation.”
As such, the claims recite an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical concept.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
“using a computer processor” in claim 1; preamble of claim 14 with an intended use; claim 19 preamble with an intended use. ¶¶ 46-54 shows the generic nature of these components; ¶ 40 clarifies on the use of a variety of generic off-the-shelf sensors that may be used for mere data gathering.
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
receiving, using a computer processor, seismic data associated with a subsurface of the resource site, the seismic data being associated with a propagated wavefield within the subsurface of the resource site and includes at least structural geological data associated with the resource site; - mere data gathering
generating, using the computer processor and based on the seismic data, one or more data matrices or data cubes including data elements associated with the received seismic data; - mere data gathering
generating, using the computer processor and the impedance model of the subsurface, a multi-dimensional image of the subsurface that is resolvable into at least two dimensions; - mere data displaying
and initiating, using the computer processor and the development plan, an energy development operation including deploying one or more energy development equipment at the resource site. – akin to the cutting of hair with scissors after first determining a hair style in In re Brown in MPEP § 2106.05(f and g) as both mere instructions to “apply it” and a token post solution activity. Also considered as mere data transmission in view of ¶ 58: “This deployment may be facilitated, for example, by the electronic transmission of the development plan to a stake holder (e.g., contractor, site developers, etc.) and/or transmission of instructions to energy development systems that control or otherwise coordinate said deployment of energy development equipment”.
Should the generating of the geo-layering model be not considered abstract, then the Examiner submits that this is merely a token extra-solution activity as an insignificant computer implementation as well as mere data gathering for the next step in the abstract idea.
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) “…Instead, under Prong Two, a claim that recites a judicial exception is not directed to that judicial exception, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Prong Two thus distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception…Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B” and MPEP § 2106(I): “Mayo, 566 U.S. at 80, 84, 101 USPQ2dat 1969, 1971 (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found “the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,”” – and see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
To further clarify, MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1): “Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (citing Mayo, 566 US at 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965). Yet, the Court has explained that ‘‘[a]t some level, all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas,’’ and has cautioned ‘‘to tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law” See also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The ‘directed to’ inquiry, therefore, cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon").”
As a point of clarity, RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) as well as MPEP § 2106.04(I): “Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (emphasis in original).
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP §2106.04(d).
Step 2B
The claimed invention does not recite any additional elements/limitations that amount to significantly more.
The following limitations are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”:
“using a computer processor” in claim 1; preamble of claim 14 with an intended use; claim 19 preamble with an intended use. ¶¶ 46-54 shows the generic nature of these components; ¶ 40 clarifies on the use of a variety of generic off-the-shelf sensors that may be used for mere data gathering.
The following limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g):
receiving, using a computer processor, seismic data associated with a subsurface of the resource site, the seismic data being associated with a propagated wavefield within the subsurface of the resource site and includes at least structural geological data associated with the resource site; - mere data gathering
generating, using the computer processor and based on the seismic data, one or more data matrices or data cubes including data elements associated with the received seismic data; - mere data gathering
generating, using the computer processor and the impedance model of the subsurface, a multi-dimensional image of the subsurface that is resolvable into at least two dimensions; - mere data displaying
and initiating, using the computer processor and the development plan, an energy development operation including deploying one or more energy development equipment at the resource site. – akin to the cutting of hair with scissors after first determining a hair style in In re Brown in MPEP § 2106.05(f and g) as both mere instructions to “apply it” and a token post solution activity. Also considered as mere data transmission in view of ¶ 58: “This deployment may be facilitated, for example, by the electronic transmission of the development plan to a stake holder (e.g., contractor, site developers, etc.) and/or transmission of instructions to energy development systems that control or otherwise coordinate said deployment of energy development equipment”.
Should the generating of the geo-layering model be not considered abstract, then the Examiner submits that this is merely a token extra-solution activity as an insignificant computer implementation as well as mere data gathering for the next step in the abstract idea. It is also WURC – evidence below.
In addition, the above insignificant extra-solution activities are also considered as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d):
Data gathering steps and data transmission steps are WURC in view of MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) of: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)…iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”
The image generation is WURC as the WURC activity of FWI imaging (see common knowledge evidence above for what POSITA would know; see below evidence), followed by its later use in a geo-layer model.
Rayment, Tom. LC London: MP-FWI imaging: the future of processing and imaging, with Tom Rayment. YouTube Video. Apr. 19th, 2024. URL: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=McnYn6u4R68. Around the 2:20-2:30 timeframe specifically, note that “2020” on this “brief history” shows that “Least-squares migration”: “iterative least-squares migration has become possible and is regarded as one of the most advanced and conventional imaging algorithms that we might run today” – see Zhang, 2020 to clarify, at page 658 col. 1, ¶ 1: “As for the imaging procedure, the RTM image is technically obtained through an adjoint operator whereas the FWI Image is the result of an iterative least-squares data fitting process, which has similar benefits to least-squares migration, such as balancing illumination and mitigating migration artifacts on the images.” Also, see around 3:30 and see its associated transcript to clarify its an overview of this process, discussing how “we can use reflections” around 4:05-4:15 including a “reflectively volume” and “that’s the essence of FWI imaging”. See around 5:30 which discusses that “5 to 6 years ago” discussing how they did it before Zhang’s paper, then at 6:00 notes a “recent” but “fairly standard approach to FWI imaging by taking a derivative of these attributes” to get a “Pseudo-reflectively” image as visually depicted – in particular, note the updated models. See around the 18:30 time which shows from left to right the generation of a layer model – see the step “Most Likely lithography”, preceded by the construction of the velocity model (“Vp/Vs”). To clarify, back to the 3:30 – the “Real, field data” step which shows the FWI image leading to “Model updates”.
PNG
media_image2.png
570
1224
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
779
816
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Zhang, Zhigang, et al. "FWI Imaging: Full-wavefield imaging through full-waveform inversion." SEG International Exposition and Annual Meeting. SEG, 2020. As cited above.
Baldock, S., et al. "FWI Imaging: the future or merely derivative?." 84th EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition Workshop Programme. Vol. 2023. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2023. As cited above.
Wang, Bin, et al. "Inversion-based imaging: from LSRTM to FWI imaging." First Break 39.12 (2021): 85-93. As cited above.
Rayment, T., et al. "High-resolution FWI imaging-an alternative to conventional processing." 83rd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition. Vol. 2022. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2022. As cited above.
Roodaki, Alireza, et al. "Increasing P-wave and S-wave velocity resolution with FWI—a North Sea shallow water case study." First Break 42.5 (2024): 37-42. Page 38, second to last paragraph: “FWI derives high-resolution velocity models by minimising the difference between observed and modelled seismic waveforms. It goes beyond refraction and reflection tomography techniques by using additional information provided by the full seismic wavefield, including diving waves, reflections and their ghosts and multiples. From this detailed velocity field, it is then possible to derive the reflectivity, called the FWI Image (Zhang et al., 2020).”
Wu et al. (naming Zhang as a co-inventor), US 2023/0288590 ¶¶ 40-42, in particular note equations 15-16 are the instant equation 3 in ¶ 30; and ¶ 42: “The values of equation (16) can then be plotted to generate an image of the subsurface, which is typically used by the oil and gas operators for predicting the location of an oil and gas reservoir (or other resources), and for determining the best location for drilling a well for accessing those resources. Note that the sudden changes in the reflectivity from one layer to another layer are visible on the calculated images, as now discussed.”
Davy, Richard G., et al. "Generating high‐fidelity reflection images directly from full‐waveform inversion: Hikurangi Subduction Zone case study." Geophysical Research Letters 48.19 (2021): e2021GL094981. Abstract, then see plain language summary: “Seismic reflection imaging has been used for decades by industry and academia to provide high-resolution images of geological structures below the surface of the Earth. Over the last 5–10 years, the petroleum industry has increasingly used full-waveform inversion (FWI) to recover well-resolved seismic velocity models, which they then use to improve their reflection images.” And §1 ¶ 2: “Consequently, it is now possible to resolve the physical properties of the shallow crust on length scales of tens of meters. These greater resolutions mean that high-frequency-FWI can now be used to resolve the physical property contrasts responsible for generating reflections without performing conventional seismic processing, velocity-model building, and migration imaging. As a result, FWI can be used to generate accurate depth images directly (e.g., Kalinicheva et al., 2020; Routh et al., 2017; Sedova et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020) using a simple integrated workflow and minimal pre-processing of the input data.”
Henrique, Arthur, et al. "Elastic FWI imaging of a complex presalt structure using NATS data." SEG International Exposition and Annual Meeting. SEG, 2023. Section on “FWI Imaging”
Huang, Rongxin, et al. "Full-waveform inversion for full-wavefield The Leading Edge 40.5 (2021): 324-334, Abstract, then see equations 2-3 and accompanying description, incl.: “We hereinafter refer to this approach as “FWI imaging” and the resulting reflectivity model as an “FWI image” (Zhang et al., 2020).
Jones, Ian F., et al. "Tutorial: Least squares migration and full waveform imaging." First Break 41.3 (2023): 27-35. Section “Full waveform inversion imaging” ¶¶ 1-2 and Appendix 1
Kerrison, H., et al. "Impact of streamer acquisition geometry on FWI Imaging." 82nd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition. Vol. 2021. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2021. Section “FWI Imaging” ¶¶ 1-2, noting in particular eq. 1, then see: “We refer to this as FWI Imaging. FWI Imaging can use the raw data with no pre-processing and, therefore, given an adequate starting model and data, it can effectively replace the preprocessing, model building and migration stages with a single operation… more visible. The examples illustrate that this survey works well with FWI Imaging technology. Other good examples of FWI imaging on this dataset have been investigated (Saluan et al., [2021] FWI velocity and imaging: A case study in the Johan Castberg area, submitted for 83rd EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Extended Abstracts).”
McLeman, J., et al. "FWI imaging: Achieving AVA reflectivity faster than the conventional workflow." Asia Petroleum Geoscience Conference and Exhibition (APGCE). Vol. 2022. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2022. Abstract, then see Introudction including ¶¶ 1-2: “Common approaches to achieve such results use reflections in a high frequency, single parameter FWI for velocity (Letki et al., 2019), or make use of an additional parameter in a cascaded or simultaneous sense as a “bin” to dump a representation of the scattering interfaces which is then discarded, to yield the interpretable model. The derivative of the interpretable model thus yields a pseudo-reflectivity image (Kalinicheva et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020).”
Mifflin, Cheryl, et al. "Shenzi OBN: An imaging step change." The Leading Edge 40.5 (2021): 348-356. Abstract, then see page 353 paragraph split between the columns for hte “FWI image volume” citing again to Zhang 2020.
Peiro, M., et al. "PS imaging on the Edvard Grieg field: Application of PS Reflection FWI and FWI imaging." 83rd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition. Vol. 2022. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2022. Introduction ¶ 1 and last paragraph of page 1
Wei, Zhiyuan, et al. "Pushing seismic resolution to the limit with FWI imaging." The Leading Edge 42.1 (2023): 24-32. Abstract: “In contrast, full-waveform inversion (FWI) imaging models and uses the full-wavefield data including primaries and multiples and reflection and transmission waves to iteratively invert for the velocity and reflectivity in one go. It is a systemic approach to address imaging issues. FWI imaging has proven to be a superior method over conventional imaging methods because it provides seismic images with greatly improved illumination, S/N, focusing, and resolution.” And page 25, col. 1, ¶ 2: “Full-waveform inversion (FWI) imaging (Zhang et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2021a, 2021b) [not the instant inventive entity] models and uses the full-wavefield data including primaries and multiples (ghost included) and reflection and transmission waves to iteratively invert for reflectivity and velocity in one go”
Salaun, N., et al. "FWI velocity and imaging: A case study in the Johan Castberg area." 82nd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition. Vol. 2021. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2021. Abstract, introduction ¶ 2, then see equation 1 and accompanying description, including hte paragraph following it.
Vigh, Denes, et al. "Forge ahead in acquisition and model building via full-waveform inversion: Gulf of Mexico case study." Geophysics 88.5 (2023): B285-B295. Pages 291-293, in particular see equation 2 and accompanying description, incl.: “Thanks to pseudoreflectivity extraction, it is now possible to derive the depth image early in the whole seismic data processing sequence”
Wei, Z., et al. "Unlocking unprecedented seismic resolution with FWI imaging." 82nd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition. Vol. 2021. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2021. Abstract, then see page 1 ¶¶ 3-6 and fig. 1.
Wei, Zhiyuan, et al. "FWI imaging: Revealing the unprecedented resolution of seismic data." SEG International Exposition and Annual Meeting. SEG, 2021. Section: “Maximizing seismic resolution with FWI Imaging”
Wray, Brad, et al. "Paradigm shift: Recent advances in model building and imaging at Shenzi." SEG International Exposition and Annual Meeting. SEG, 2021. Abstract, then see section “Impact on imaging” including again another Zhang et al. 2020 reference.
Wu, Han, et al. "Joint Migration Inversion Based on a Full-Wavefield Acoustic Wave Equation With Vector Reflectivity." IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 62 (2024): 1-11. See equation 18 and accompanying description.
Zhang, Zhigang, et al. "Enhancing salt model resolution and subsalt imaging with elastic FWI." The Leading Edge 42.3 (2023): 207-215. Abstract, then see introduction ¶ 2
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of both a mathematical concept and a mental process without significantly more.
Regarding the dependent claims
Claim 2 is merely further specifying what the data includes as describe the “waves” purely for how they should be without adding any particular detail about how they are gathered, i.e. its part of the mere data gathering by merely selecting what information is to be gathered (MPEP § 2106.05(g and h) for Electric Power Group). Should it be construed that these are claiming the waves themselves, such subject matter has long been ineligible - see O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1853) in MPEP § 2106.04(b)(I) for there is no machinery recited in the claims themselves for how these waves are even to be generated
Claim 3 – merely adding generic WURC sensors to the mere data gathering. WURC evidence at ¶ 60: “Furthermore, the one or more sensors deployed at the resource site can comprise one of a distributed acoustic sensor, a hydrophonic sensor, or a geophonic sensor”, wherein the Examiner notes that this merely lists sensors by genus, i.e. POSITA would have known what these are and that these were conventional because the specification is merely omitting what is well known (e.g. the structure of the sensors) as preferred – also see WURC evidence above, e.g. McLeman, J., et al. "FWI imaging: Achieving AVA reflectivity faster than the conventional workflow." Asia Petroleum Geoscience Conference and Exhibition (APGCE). Vol. 2022. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2022, section “Method”, ¶¶ 1-2; e.g. Davy, Richard G., et al. "Generating high‐fidelity reflection images directly from full‐waveform inversion: Hikurangi Subduction Zone case study." Geophysical Research Letters 48.19 (2021): e2021GL094981. § 2.2 ¶ 1. Roodaki, Alireza, et al. "Increasing P-wave and S-wave velocity resolution with FWI—a North Sea shallow water case study." First Break 42.5 (2024): 37-42. Page 39 ¶ 1.
To clarify, MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III): “(A) A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).” To clarify, see MPEP § 2164.01: “A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947 (1987); and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463, 221 USPQ 481, 489 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” Also see MPEP § 2163(II)(A)(3)(a): “What is conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail. See Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94. See also Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("The ‘written description’ requirement must be applied in the context of the particular invention and the state of the knowledge…. As each field evolves, the balance also evolves between what is known and what is added by each inventive contribution."). If a skilled artisan would have understood the inventor to be in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification, then the adequate description requirement is met.”
Claim 4 – further limiting the math concept in textual form for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claim 5 – rejected under a similar rationale as claim 3.
Claim 6 – further describing the nature of the waves themselves, rejected under a similar rationale as claim 2.
Claim 7 – certain methods of organizing human activity. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(c): “Other examples of managing personal behavior recited in a claim include: i. filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” – also a mental process, given the generality recited and disclosed (e.g. ¶ 8), as people are readily able to de-noise data, e.g. suppose the data is presented in tabular form, with one column for each cardinal direction (N-S; E-W; and vertical axes), wherein a person is readily able to mentally observe the data, and mentally observe large noisey outliers (e.g. a data point or small series of data points that are well out of the normal range of nearby data points) and mentally judge how to fix this, e.g. delete the data points, or simply append an averaged value from the nearby data points that are in the normal range. Should the denoising not be found to be part of the abstract idea, then it is merely part of the mere data gathering, and WURC in view of:
Kerrison, H., et al. "Impact of streamer acquisition geometry on FWI Imaging." 82nd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition. Vol. 2021. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2021. Section “FWI Imaging” ¶¶ 1-2, noting in particular eq. 1, then see: “Figure 2a shows the reflectivity obtained from reverse time migration (RTM) using data through a conventional denoise, deghost and demultiple processing flow, while Figure 2b shows the FWI Image which has utilized both the Front Source and Top Source data with no pre-processing other than deblending.”
Jones, Ian F., et al. "Tutorial: Least squares migration and full waveform imaging." First Break 41.3 (2023): 27-35. See fig. 1: “Conventional migration. Bottom: Least Squares (primaries-only) migration” – note both include a “Denoise” step prior to later analysis steps
Kalinicheva, Tatiana, Mike Warner, and Fabio Mancini. "Full-bandwidth FWI." SEG technical program expanded abstracts 2020. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2020. 651-655. Introduction: “In a conventional PSDM workflow, operations to de-noise, de-ghost, de-multiple, zero-phase, build a velocity model, remove refracted arrivals, depth migrate primary reflections, minimize residual moveout, and generate a final stacked depth volume are all explicit, and are typically performed as separate operations. In contrast, using FWI, these operations are all implicit within a single integrated algorithm. Before applying FWI, we bandpass filtered the data between 3 and 100 Hz, and we muted the data ahead of the first arrivals; this was the only pre-processing applied to the field data [example of denoising]. The high-cut filter rolls off such that there is no significant energy retained in the filtered data above about 120 Hz, and this appears to retain all the useful energy in the field data”
Claim 8 – this is merely limiting the math concept to the cartesian coordinate system, and similar such coordinate systems, wherein the directions of each plane in the coordinate system are orthogonal (e.g. x is orthogonal to y and z; and the like).
Claim 9 – further limiting the math concept for similar reasons as discussed above
Claim 10 – further add steps to the abstract idea itself, i.e. merely mental observations of an image, followed by mental steps such as drawing out layers of lithography that were mentally observed (or a mental visualization). To clarify, see fig. 5B which shows a simple drawing using various thickness of marker would sufficient. Or, should it not be found to be abstract, it would be rejected under a similar rationale as above for the generation of the geo-layering model.
Claim 11:
Limitation [a]: generally linking to a particular technological environment (for the “windfarm”) the mental process of determining geological information associated with placing a building/structure (e.g. see the Empire State Building, for its foundation is quite deep into the geology to stabilize it, or similar such large structures built without the aid of computers, e.g. the Brooklyn Bridge, the London Bridge, the Vatican, etc., and it was mentally evaluated for this prior to computers; e.g. see California State building codes which have long required builders to ensure homes are safely constructed for an earthquake zone);
Limitation [b] for determining a “risk map”: Purely a mental process, but on a computer. The claim goes into no detail of how this map is generated, but only what it contains, e.g. a person is readily able to observe a map of where fault lines prone to earthquakes are (e.g. building in California), and identify that areas near these fault lines are high risk, and areas further away are low risk. In a similar manner, flood maps from FEMA may be used to draw a risk map for a small area, etc.
Limitation [c] for the hazard information – a mental process akin to [b] with merely an expression of a desired result. A person is readily able to determine hazard information, e.g. the oil rig is going to be next to a playground in Texas, and then optimize security operations, e.g. put a fence around the rig, akin to people putting fences around pools
Claim 12 is merely further limiting the data displayed to be either 2D or 3D, WURC in view of evidence above.
Claim 13 is merely further clarifying it’s a math concept in textual form for similar reasons as discussed above
Claims 15-18 and 20 are rejected under a similar rationale as their representative dependent claims discussed above.
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea of a mathematical concept, certain methods of organizing human activity, and a mental process without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al., US 2023/0103668 in view of Kerrison, H., et al. "Impact of streamer acquisition geometry on FWI Imaging." 82nd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition. Vol. 2021. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2021 in further view of Wu, Han, et al. "Joint Migration Inversion Based on a Full-Wavefield Acoustic Wave Equation With Vector Reflectivity." IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 62 (2024): 1-11.
Regarding Claim 1
Jiang taken in view of Zhang teaches:
A method for generating a development plan for a resource site, the method comprising: (Jiang, abstract and fig. 3, along with accompanying description)
receiving, using a computer processor, seismic data associated with a subsurface of the resource site, the seismic data being associated with a propagated wavefield within the subsurface of the resource site and includes at least structural geological data associated with the resource site generating, using the computer processor and based on the seismic data, one or more data matrices or data cubes including data elements associated with the received seismic data; ; (Jiang, fig. 4, # 102 – to clarify, ¶ 40: “In some embodiments, the computer system 60 may generate a two-dimensional representation or a three-dimensional representation of the subsurface region 26 based on the seismic data received via the receivers mentioned above. Additionally, seismic data associated with multiple seismic source/receiver combinations may be combined to create a near continuous profile of the subsurface region 26 that can extend for some distance. In a two-dimensional (2D) seismic survey, the receiver locations may be placed along a single line, whereas in a three-dimensional (3D) survey the receiver locations may be distributed across the surface in a grid pattern. As such, a 2D seismic survey may provide a cross sectional picture (vertical slice) of the Earth layers as they exist directly beneath the recording locations. A 3D seismic survey, on the other hand, may create a data "cube" or volume that may correspond to a 3D picture of the subsurface region 26. In either case, a seismic survey may be composed of a very large number of individual seismic recordings or traces. As such, the computer system 60 may be employed to analyze the acquired seismic data to obtain an image representative of the subsurface region 26 and, using the obtained image, determine locations and properties of desired hydrocarbon deposits within the subsurface region 26 which may be later extracted.”)
determining, using the computer processor and the one or more data matrices or data cubes, a first rate of change data of the propagated wavefield within the subsurface [1] in a first direction; determining, using the computer processor and the one or more data matrices or data cubes, a second rate of change data of the propagated wavefield within the subsurface [1] in a second direction; determining, using the computer processor and the one or more data matrices or data cubes, a third rate of change data of the propagated wavefield within the subsurface [1] in a third direction; executing, using the computer processor and the first rate of change data, the second rate of change data, and the third rate of change data, an [2] averaging operation to generate an impedance model for the subsurface; generating, using the computer processor and the impedance model of the subsurface, a multi-dimensional image of the subsurface that is resolvable into at least two dimensions;
Jiang, abstract, then see fig. 4, in particular note the computing of the velocity gradient in # 110 [rate of change of velocity in the data] to # 114 for the generation of the “pseudo-reflectivity image…” – see ¶¶ 50-55 to clarify, in particular ¶ 54: “At block 110, method 100 includes computing a velocity gradient or derivative associated with the subsurface region based on the velocity model constructed at block 104.” And ¶ 55: “At block 114, method 100 includes generating a high-resolution pseudo-reflectivity image of the subsurface
region based on the polarized normal vectors and velocity gradient combined at block 112.” – then note ¶ 55 for: “As an example, the high-resolution pseudo-reflectivity image has a resolution of 20-30 Hz or more when an RTM process is utilized for performing the seismic migration at block 106”
But there are two distinctions:
1) Jiang does not teach computing the rate of change in each of the three directions, rather it merely teaches calculating the velocity gradient/rate of change
2) Jiang does not perform an averaging operation
However, these would have been obvious when Jiang was taken in further view of Kerrison:
Kerrison, abstract: “The combination of ever-increasing computational power and more robust algorithms have made it possible to run full-waveform inversion (FWI) to higher frequencies and, also, offer more possibilities to take advantage of the reflections in the inversion. Through a process known as FWI Imaging, the detailed velocity models produced can be used to generate a reflectivity normal to the reflector plane. We outline the methodology and advantages of FWI Imaging, and introduce the concept of a dip coherency image as an additional interpretation tool, using information parallel to the reflector plane.”
With respect to distinction (1), Then, see introduction, ¶ 1, discussing: “In particular, better use of reflected waves and full data-bandwidth inversions allow us to generate high-resolution models and offer the possibility to directly obtain a migration-like reflectivity image, in a process known as FWI Imaging (Zhang et al., 2020). Previous attempts at developing full-wavefield migrations have been made, such as joint migration inversion (Berkhout, 2012) or least-square migration using multiples (Soubaras and Gratacos, 2019), but FWI Imaging improves over them due to its ability to update the longer wavelength components of the velocity model” – followed by section “FWI imaging”, in particular note the equation 1: “These high-resolution details may have minimal impact on the images generated by conventional imaging algorithms but, by taking the derivative of the impedance normal to the structural dip, they allow us to obtain a high-resolution reflectivity (Zhang et al., 2020; Kalinicheva et al., 2020): where 𝐼 = 𝜌𝑣 is the impedance [it’s an impedance model], 𝑣 is the velocity, 𝜃 and 𝜑 are the dip- and azimuth-angle, respectively, of the normal vector to the subsurface reflectors, and we make a constant density, 𝜌, assumption here for simplicity” – note in equation 1 the “dx”; “dy”; “dz”, i.e. the gradient/derivative is taken with respect to each of three cartesian directions; to clarify: “We refer to this as FWI Imaging. FWI Imaging can use the raw data with no pre processing and, therefore, given an adequate starting model and data, it can effectively replace the preprocessing, model building and migration stages with a single operation… It also makes it possible to produce an image shortly after acquisition is complete…. This can be confirmed by looking at the images filtered back to low frequencies as shown in Figure 2e-h, with the FWI Image clearly outperforming the RTM with shallow events and deeper faults much more visible”
With respect to distinction (2), see Kerrison, section “Dip-coherency Image”: “However,
to aid interpretation, we can obtain information parallel to the reflector plane, by taking the root mean square (RMS) [example of an averaging operation, and note eq. 1 for its impedance term] of the spatial derivatives of the velocity within the plane of the reflector along and perpendicular to the local azimuth direction, 𝑛 and 𝑛, respectively” – see eq. 2-4
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Jiang on which was based on RTM techniques for generating the image with the teachings from Kerrison on FWI imaging that “clearly outperform[s] the RTM” for generating such images and also Kerrison’s generation of the dip coherence image. The motivation to combine would have been that it “clearly outperform[s]” RTM as was used in Jiang. Fig. 2 of Jiang clarifies on this, with its accompanying description.
POSITA would have also been motivated to combine with the dip-coherency image of Kerrsion because, per page 4 ¶ 2 discussing fig. 3: “Comparing the FWI Image (Figure 3a) and the dip-coherency image (Figure 3b) for the same section, we can see how the latter highlights the deeper faults and small fracture events. In addition, the shallow depth slices through the two images demonstrate the excellent spatial resolution, showing how the dip coherency image (Figure 3d) is able to highlight the iceberg scours on the sea floor and reveal more small scale details not previously visible on the FWI Image alone (Figure 3c).”
analyzing or interpreting, using the computer processor, the multi-dimensional image of the subsurface to determine subsurface features included in the multi-dimensional image [3] and thereby generate a geo-layering model;
Jiang, ¶ 19: “The information collected from the reflected seismic waves may be used to create velocity models and seismic images which may be used to identify subterranean features of interest such as, for example, hydrocarbon deposits.” ¶ 20: “In addition to generating
the velocity model, FWI processes may be applied to generate seismic images of the subsurface region sometimes referred to in the art as "pseudo-reflectivity images" where a velocity gradient is computed from the FWI-generated velocity model” and ¶ 21: “As an example, given that FWI processes utilize the full wavefield in the development of seismic images of the subsurface region, pseudo-reflectivity images may offer greater illumination of certain types of subsurface structures contained in the subsurface region such as complex salt structures and the features hidden beneath salt structures...” – then see ¶ 26: “The images, velocity models, and other information gleaned from the captured seismic data may be utilized in locating hydrocarbon deposits within subsurface region 26. For example, the captured seismic data may be analyzed to generate a map or profile that illustrates various geological formations within the subsurface region 26...[see remaining portions cited below of ¶ 26 to clarify; also ¶ 36 on this being displayed as well]”; followed by ¶ 40: “In either case, a seismic survey may be composed of a very large number of individual seismic recordings or traces. As such, the computer system 60 may be employed to analyze the acquired seismic data to obtain an image representative of the subsurface region 26 and, using the obtained image, determine locations and properties of desired hydrocarbon deposits within the subsurface region 26 which may be later extracted.”
dynamically constructing, using the computer processor and the [3] geo-layering model, the development plan for the resource site; and initiating, using the computer processor and the development plan, an energy development operation including deploying one or more energy development equipment at the resource site.
Jiang, ¶ 26 as cited above, as continued: “Based on the identified locations and properties of the hydrocarbon deposits determined from the captured seismic data, certain positions or parts (e.g., AOI 25) of the subsurface region 26 may be explored. That is, hydrocarbon exploration organizations may use the locations of the hydrocarbon deposits to determine locations at the surface (seafloor 28 in this exemplary embodiment) of the subsurface region 26 to drill into the Earth. As such, the hydrocarbon exploration organizations may use the locations and properties of the hydrocarbon deposits and the associated overburdens to determine a path along which to drill into the Earth, how to drill into the Earth, and the like. After exploration equipment has been placed within the subsurface region, the hydrocarbons that are stored in the identified hydrocarbon deposits may be produced via natural flowing wells, artificial lift wells, and the like.” followed by ¶ 40: “In either case, a seismic survey may be composed of a very large number of individual seismic recordings or traces. As such, the computer system 60 may be employed to analyze the acquired seismic data to obtain an image representative of the subsurface region 26 and, using the obtained image, determine locations and properties of desired hydrocarbon deposits within the subsurface region 26 which may be later extracted.” – to clarify, ¶ 36: “In one embodiment, the display 72 may be a touch display capable of receiving inputs from a user of the computer system 60. The display 72 may also be used to view and analyze results of the analysis of the acquired seismic data to determine the geological formations within the subsurface region 26, the location and property of hydrocarbon deposits within the subsurface region 26, predictions of seismic properties associated with one or more wells in the subsurface region 26, and the like” – to clarify on the BRI on the initiating, instant disclosure, ¶ 58: “This deployment may be facilitated, for example, by the electronic transmission of the development plan to a stake holder (e.g., contractor, site developers, etc.) and/or transmission of instructions to energy development systems that control or otherwise coordinate said deployment of energy development equipment”, e.g. ¶ 36 of Jiang, as it would be transmitted by displaying to the user; and further see ¶ 38: “After performing various types of seismic data processing, the computer system 60 may store the results of the analysis in one or more databases 74. The databases 74 may be communicatively coupled to a network ( e.g., a wide area network like the Internet) that may transmit and receive data to and from the computer system 60 via the communication component 62.” – i.e. this conveys at least that POSITA would have been suggested to transmit the stored data, such as to the “hydrocarbon exploration organizations” that are using the results of the analysis in ¶ 26, or at the very least this would have been obvious because all it required was broadly automating (MPEP § 2144.04(III) for In re Venner) the initiation of the plan by transmitting it (Jiang ¶ 38) to the “hydrocarbon exploration organizations” (Jiang, ¶ 26), wherein POSITA would have found this obvious because this would be simply “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;” and/or “(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;” (MPEP § 2143(I)) - i.e. simply transmit the stored data, or simple substitution of the display at the local computer (note Jiang ¶ 37 to clarify on this) with a transmission to the computer/display of the “hydrocarbon exploration organizations”; also POSITA would have further been motived to do such a combination because “In this case, each computer system 60 operating as part of a supercomputer may not include each component listed as part of the computer system 60. For example, each computer system 60 may not include the display 72 since multiple displays 72 may not be useful to for a supercomputer designed to continuously process seismic data” (Jiang, ¶ 37), i.e. they would have been motivated to use the supercomputer of Jiang for processing and analyzing the data, and then transmit the results (¶ 38) to a user’s computer, because it would be useful to “continuously process seismic data” but having a display for the “supercomputer” “may not be useful”.
There is one distinction thought from Jiang, and that is at [3] for the geo-layering model, as while Jiang at ¶ 26 teaches: “generate a map or profile that illustrates various geological formations within the subsurface region” it does not teach this is a geo-layering model. See instant fig. 5B to clarify for a visual example of this, per ¶ 69 of the instant disclosure for the BRI.
However, this distinction would have been obvious when Jiang, as was already taken in view of Kerrison, was taken in further view of Wu.
Wu, abstract, then see fig. 2 and accompanying description, do make note of equation 18 from Zhang 2020 (same as Kerrison as cited above), wherein fig 2 shows that it’s a process to generate a “Final Model” for the “Subsurface” – see §§ II-III for details, in particular see § III: “Fig. 4(a)–(d) are the P-wave velocity, density, and vector reflectivity of the overthrust model, respectively. Fig. 4(e) is the dip angle of the model, and Fig. 4(f) is the subsurface reflectivity model provided by (18).” And see fig. 4, in particular note (a) and (b), noting that this is along “depth” as compared to “distance” and color coded for what would have been inferred were the different lithographic layers (see the color scale which shows its “Density”, i.e. the density in those layers).
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Jiang, as taken in view of Kerrison above, on generating a map for the structures in the formation with the teachings from Wu on “Velocity and reflectivity models are fundamental outcomes obtained from seismic exploration, enabling the identification of subsurface structures and physical properties… Despite sharing a similar least-squares inversion framework, FWI and LSRTM present challenges in effectively combining them to generate both velocity and reflectivity models simultaneously due to their different modeling engines and dependencies on data components. In this study, we propose a novel joint migration inversion (JMI) approach by incorporating a two-way full-wavefield modeling engine parameterized by the subsurface velocity and reflectivity.” The motivation to combine would have been that “The method developed in this study has the potential to directly process seismic data containing full wavefield information, reducing data preprocessing complexity and avoiding potential damage to valid signals during the processing. Through a synthetic data test and a benchmark test, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our JMI approach. Moreover, when compared with conventional approaches for velocity building and imaging, our method yields velocity and reflectivity models with higher resolution and improved consistency” (Wu, abstract; see § I ¶ 1 to clarify)
Regarding Claim 2
Combination of art above teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the seismic data includes one or more of:
surface waves including waves whose amplitude decrease with increasing depth within the subsurface of the resource site; guided waves including mechanical or elastic waves within an ultrasonic or a sonic frequency band and which are propagated within a bounded medium that is parallel to a direction of the propagated wavefield; and interface waves indicating geological boundaries included in the subsurface of the resource site. (Jiang, see fig. 1-2, note that there are waves going into the surface, e.g. # 48, guided waves, e.g. the small second arrow at the end of # 48 that is in a bounded medium, and the reflected interface waves, e.g. # 50 and # 52 indicating boundaries. See ¶¶ 23-24 to further clarify, wherein these are “sound waves”, e.g. by “an array of air guns”, and ¶ 21 gives the frequency band of interest, also see ¶ 46, e.g. up to “50 Hz”, and ¶ 55 that it might be “30Hz”, i.e. sonic frequencies
the decrease in amplitude is caused by the “reflected seismic energy” - ¶ 24, i.e. at each interface, “some of the seismic energy of the seismic waves 33 is reflected off of one or more subsurface reflectors 29 formed within the subsurface region 26 such that the reflected seismic energy ( e.g., reflected seismic waves indicated by arrow 35 in FIG. 1) travels towards the surface”, i.e. as they reflect, they lose some of their energy, and thus their amplitude would decrease as they increased in depth
do note also that the reflected waves, e.g. # 50 and # 52, once they leave the medium, become surface waves and propagate back to the sensor (¶¶ 25-26)
As to being elastic waves or mechanical, the Examiner notes POSITA would have inferred that the waves of Jiang were at least mechanical, and would have found it obvious in view of Wu to use elastic waves. See Wu, § IV: “In this section, the Chevron 2014 benchmark dataset is used to further validate the proposed method. This dataset contains 1600 synthetic shot-gathers generated using the isotropic elastic wave equation with a free-surface boundary condition and a marine towed steamer geometry” – i.e. POSITA would have found it a simple substitution of the dataset to the one in Kerrison that is a “benchmark dataset” (to clarify, note Jiang ¶ 24 discloses a towed marine streamer data source); and POSITA would have also been motivated to validate the combined invention with such a “benchmark dataset” so as to have a benchmark to compare against (e.g. Wu, fig. 14).
Regarding Claim 3
Jiang teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the seismic data includes surface waves captured by one or more sensors deployed at the resource site. (Jiang, ¶¶ 24-25, as discussed above: “The reflected seismic waves 35 captured by seismic receivers 36 comprises seismic data which may be processed by a computer system to generate one or more images and/or velocity models associated with the subsurface region 26”)
Regarding Claim 5
Jiang teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein the one or more sensors deployed at the resource site include one of a distributed acoustic sensor, a hydrophone sensor, or a geophone sensor. (jiang, ¶¶ 24-25 as discussed above and fig. 1, i.e. its distributed acoustic sensors, “e.g. hydrophones”)
Regarding Claim 6
Jiang teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein the surface waves indicate the propagated wavefield within the subsurface of the resource site based on a frequency bandwidth of the propagated wavefield. (Jiang, fig. 1-2 and ¶¶ 25-26 as discussed above, along with the bandwidths discussed above, e.g. 30 Hz, in ¶ 55)
Regarding Claim 7
Jiang teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein a multi-dimensional smoothing process including a de-noising operation is applied to the seismic data prior to determining the first rate of change data, the second rate of change data, or the third rate of change data. (Jiang, ¶ 40: “…A 3D seismic survey, on the other hand, may create a data "cube" or volume that may correspond to a 3D picture of the subsurface region 26…To that end, a variety of seismic data processing algorithms may be used to remove noise from the acquired seismic data, migrate the pre-processed seismic data, identify shifts between multiple seismic images, align multiple seismic images, and the like.”
Regarding Claim 8
Jiang, in view of Kerrison teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction are each orthogonal relative to each other. (Jiang, as was taken in view of Kerrison above, see eq. 1, and its Cartesian coordinate system (i.e. orthogonal directions) with “x”, “y”, and “z”)
Regarding Claim 9
Jiang, in view of Kerrison teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the averaging operation includes combining directional rate of change data of the propagated wavefield within the subsurface based on the first rate of change data, the second rate of change data, and the third rate of change data. (Jiang, as was taken in view of Kerrison, eq. 2-4 and accompanying description)
Regarding Claim 10.
Jiang, in view of Wu teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing or interpreting the multi-dimensional image of the subsurface comprises:
determining geologic features included in the multi-dimensional image; (Jiang, as cited above, e.g. ¶¶ 19-21 and ¶ 26, also ¶¶ 36 and 40)
resolving the geologic features into one or more geological layering data included in the subsurface of the resource site; and generating the geo-layering model using the geological layering data. (Jiang, as was cited above, and taken in combination with Wu as cited above, e.g. abstract, then see fig. 2 and accompanying description, do make note of equation 18 from Zhang 2020 (same as Kerrison as cited above), wherein fig 2 shows that it’s a process to generate a “Final Model” for the “Subsurface” – see §§ II-III for details, in particular see § III: “Fig. 4(a)–(d) are the P-wave velocity, density, and vector reflectivity of the overthrust model, respectively. Fig. 4(e) is the dip angle of the model, and Fig. 4(f) is the subsurface reflectivity model provided by (18).” And see fig. 4, in particular note (a) and (b), noting that this is along “depth” as compared to “distance” and color coded for what would have been inferred were the different lithographic layers (see the color scale which shows its “Density”, i.e. the density in those layers).
Regarding Claim 12.
Jiang teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein multi-dimensional image includes a 2-dimensional or a 3-dimensional image. (Jiang, as cited above for the pseudo-reflectively image, e.g. fig. 7)
Regarding Claim 13.
Jiang, in view of Kerrison teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein generating one or more of the first rate of change data, the second rate of change data, and the third rate of change data is based on directionally executing a differentiation operation on the one or more data matrices or data cubes in the first direction, the second direction, or the third direction. (Jiang, as was taken in view of Kerrison as cited above, eq. 1-4 and accompanying description)
Regarding Claim 14.
Rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 15.
Rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 16.
Rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 17.
Rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 9 above.
Regarding Claim 19.
Rejected under a similar rationale as representative claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al., US 2023/0103668 in view of Kerrison, H., et al. "Impact of streamer acquisition geometry on FWI Imaging." 82nd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition. Vol. 2021. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2021 in further view of Wu, Han, et al. "Joint Migration Inversion Based on a Full-Wavefield Acoustic Wave Equation With Vector Reflectivity." IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 62 (2024): 1-11 in further view of Teodor, Daniela, et al. "Building initial models for full-waveform inversion of shallow targets by surface waves dispersion curves clustering and data transform." SEG International Exposition and Annual Meeting. SEG, 2018.
Regarding Claim 4
While Jiang, as taken in combination above, does not explicitly teach the following, it would have been obvious when taken in further view of Teodor:
The method of claim 3, wherein one or more of the first rate of change data, the second rate of change data, and the third rate of change data are determined based on dispersion analysis of the surface waves, the dispersion analysis determining an estimation of a time average velocity of a propagated wavefield in the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction. (Jiang (note Jiang, fig. 4 for its step # 104 of an initial velocity model; ¶ 43 to clarify), as was taken in view of Kerrison, as well as Wu (note Wu fig. 2 for its “initial model”) above, taken in further view of Teodor, abstract: “Building accurate initial models for FWI is a very challenging task in near surface contexts… Commonly, SW dispersion curves (DCs) are used to retrieve the S-wave velocity (Vs) profiles, but recent studies (Socco et al., 2017; Socco and Comina, 2017) have proposed a method based on the concept of SW skin depth to estimate also P-wave velocity (Vp) profiles. An integrated DCs clustering and data-transform approach, based on SW data only, suggests the possibility of building accurate enough Vp and Vs initial models for FWI application”
Then see the introduction, incl. ¶ 2, see fig. 1 and accompanying description, then on page 2: “The analysis transforms the DCs into Vs and Vp models through the following workflow…” followed by the steps, in particular see # 3: “The reference Vs model is transformed into a time average Vs model, according to Equation 1, where h represents the thickness of the layered structure and VSi is the velocity of the ith layer… The reference time average Vs models and the relevant DCs are used to estimate a characteristic reference relation between the SW wavelength and the investigation depth (Figure 4b), according to Socco et al. (2017);…” – and so on to # 8.
See fig. 4 and 6-7 and their accompanying description to clarify.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Jiang, as taken in combination above, wherein that had an initial model in an FWI process with the teachings from Teodor on building a more accurate initial model for FWI. The motivation to combine would have been that “An integrated DCs clustering and data-transform approach, based on SW data only, suggests the possibility of building accurate enough Vp and Vs initial models for FWI application.” (Teodor, Abstract) and conclusion, last paragraph: “The data corresponding to the estimated models are in very good agreement with the true data, especially outside the low velocity target. There is also a good agreement between the two dataset inside the target for near offsets. Considering all these elements we could define this model retrieved from DC analysis as a good candidate for initial model building for FWI. These results prompt up for future investigation on more complex synthetic models and on real data.”
Claim(s) 11, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al., US 2023/0103668 in view of Kerrison, H., et al. "Impact of streamer acquisition geometry on FWI Imaging." 82nd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition. Vol. 2021. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 2021 in further view of Wu, Han, et al. "Joint Migration Inversion Based on a Full-Wavefield Acoustic Wave Equation With Vector Reflectivity." IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 62 (2024): 1-11 in further view of Lietaert, Bert. "Design and development of a hazard map for the." Master’s Thesis. Delft University of Technology (2011).
Regarding Claim 11.
See below, for Jiang, taken in further view of Lietaert teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the energy development operation includes one or more of:
determining geological foundation data for installing equipment associated with a windfarm at the resource site;
determining a risk map for extracting a resource from the resource site, the risk map indicating location data at the resource site that qualifies or quantifies: first risk information for extracting the resource at a first location included in the location data and associated with the resource site relative to, second risk information for extracting the resource at a second location included in the location data and associated with the resource site; and determining hazard information to optimize one or more of: compliance operations associated with the resource site, or security operations at the resource site.
Jiang, as cited above for the “map”, e.g. ¶ 26: “For example, the captured seismic data may be analyzed to generate a map or profile that illustrates various geological formations within the subsurface region 26. Based on the identified locations and properties of the hydrocarbon deposits determined from the captured seismic data, certain positions or parts (e.g., AOI 25) of the subsurface region 26 may be explored. That is, hydrocarbon exploration organizations may use the locations of the hydrocarbon deposits to determine locations at the surface (seafloor 28 in this exemplary embodiment) of the subsurface region 26 to drill into the
Earth.”; and as discussed above Jiang, as taken in view of Wu and Kerrison, is a system for full waveform inversion of seismic survey data
Wherein there is a first distinction that this is not a risk map with risk information for extracting the resource at the various locations, and a second distinction that there is no hazard information for ensuring compliance operations [the Examiner also notes preamble requires only “one” of these limitation], but both of these limitations would have been obvious when Jiang was taken in further view of Lietaert:
Lietaert, abstract: “The aim of this research project is to develop a hazard map for punch-through failure during jack-up rig installation in the Gulf of Suez. This map can be used to make an upfront assessment of unfavorable foundation conditions at a proposed installation site [intended use is to ensure compliance for foundation conditions]. Data to complete this research was provided by Fugro Engineers B.V.. The available data set contains (geotechnical) borehole data, geophysical data, bathymetric data and information regarding the surface sediments in the Gulf of Suez. The borehole data are used to perform bearing capacity calculations for different kinds of spudcan foundations, ranging in diameter between 10 m and 18 m. These calculations resulted in a distinction between locations with a “safe” profile and locations for which a punch-through profile is generated. At these unfavorable locations, the actual risk of a punch-trough failure will depend on the deployed rig and the corresponding preload [risk map]. Therefore, a factor of safety [hazard information for optimizing compliance with the hazard] is calculated for these risky locations. The data was integrated into an ArcGIS project. Data analysis resulted in the identification of different safe and risky zones regarding punch-through occurrence…. Generalization of the identified zones into depositional environments allowed the production of a risk map that also covers these areas in the Gulf of Suez for which no data was available. Two environments turned out to have the highest risk for punch through failure. The first environment is characterised by a deep bathymetry and fine grained sediments, possibly with coarse grained intercalations. Punch-through in these areas is related to these coarse grained intercalations or to different degree of consolidation inside these fine grained packages. The second environment is related to areas where wadis bring a lot of sediment into the Gulf of Suez and develop an alluvial fan at their mouth… Finally, for two areas with a high borehole concentration, an attempt was made to develop 3D ground models with the SGeMS software package. The bearing capacity inside the grid was predicted by applying ordinary kriging between the boreholes. The accuracy of these models and the practicability of the SGeMS program are thoroughly discussed.”, i.e. § 4.1:”… The idea for this research project is to
develop a new database, based on this list, which is readily accessible and holds for every unique location in the Gulf of Suez relevant information regarding the risk for punch-through for a specific type of rig. This database can easily be extended whenever there is new information available about a certain location and its information can be exported to GIS attribute tables.” – to clarify, see below:
See § 4.2: “Fugro has a online database in which a reference to all the available survey projects are stored…A search for the data available in the Gulf of Suez revealed that there are numerous surveys which could be useful for this research. Most of these surveys are stored at the Fugro company in Egypt. The plan was to use these geophysical data for validation of the borehole data, lateral variability assessment and identification of large scale depositional and structural features. The geophysical data would help to delineate different risk zones….” – to clarify, § 2.5 for table 1, note the various risks that may be analyzed by such “Seismic survery” data
Then see § 5.1.1, incl.: “The locations for which a punch-through profile was generated are indicated on the hazard map as red dots, the remaining locations do not have a punch-through profile and are indicated with green dots (=”safe”)…. Therefore, for every location that generated a punch-through profile, a corresponding safety factor is calculated in order to identify the actual risk…”, see § 3.1.5, then see fig. 33 which shows the “Identification of different risk zones for the K1 rig in the Gulf of Suez. The black bathymetric contour line represents the -50 m. Orange zone = risk unknown because limited data, red zone = risk for punch-through, green zone = safe. The remaining white zones = no data at all.”, similarly see fig. 36 and accompanying description
Also, see § 6: “After the large scale identification of different risk zones in the Gulf of Suez in chapter 5, this chapter discusses the developing a numerical model which estimates the bearing capacity in three dimensions. The aim is that this model gives a value for the bearing capacity at every x,y,z point in a certain area. Analyzing the course of these values in a certain direction makes it possible to identify hazardous zones for jack-up rig installation of a particular type. For the development of a representative numerical model, three things are essential: (1) sufficient data, (2) a proper geostatistical interpolation method (cf. 6.1), (3) a 3D software package to perform the interpolation (cf. 6.2).” and § 6.1, and § 6.1.2: “The effectiveness of the kriging interpolation depends on the specification of the parameters that describe the semivariogram”, e.g. see fig. 56-57, as summarized on page 85: “After developing the most suitable semivariogram with SGeMS, these bearing capacity values were interpolated with an ordinary kriging algorithm. The results are presented in Figure 56 and Figure 57. The variance error of this interpolation is indicated in Figure 58” to page 87: “The 3D model indicates, as expected, in the SE corner of the grid a zone around 15m with a high bearing capacity. This zone corresponds to the identified sand layer around 12m in ID 12. Towards the north and west, this zone gradually thins and eventually disappears. Probably, this stronger zone corresponds to a local sand deposit. A view from the NW on the 3D indicates a rather thick zone with bearing capacity values ranging between 60 – 80 MN (green-yellow). This corresponds with the thick clay deposits identified in the 4 most northern boreholes. It is eye-catching that the upper part of this package is generally indicated in yellow and then gradually becomes greener, i.e. the upper part of this layer is stronger. This can be identified as a potential punch-through profile [risk zone for punch-through].”, i.e. § 7.1 ¶ 2: “…To overcome these problems, a factor of safety (punch-through profile versus punch-through risk) is calculated for every location and the depth of the punch-through and associated plunge depth are given.”
e.g. fig. 65 which is a “generalized punch-through risk map (left)”
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Jiang, as was taken in combination above, on an FWI system which generated a map for hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation with the teachings from Lietaert on risk mapping for hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation. The motivation to combine would have been that “The aim of this research project is to develop a hazard map for punch-through failure during jack-up rig installation in the Gulf of Suez. This map can be used to make an upfront assessment of unfavorable foundation conditions at a proposed installation site.” (Lietaert, abstract)
Regarding Claim 18.
Rejected under a similar rationale as claim 11 above.
Regarding Claim 20.
Rejected under a similar rationale as claim 11 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al., US 2025/0067889, abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A. HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-0537. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10AM to 7 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David A Hopkins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188